Talk:Shunzhi Emperor/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 04:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
GAN Quicksheet 1.23 SM
(Criteria)
Starting comments: Well... umm... this is going to be an FA. It's very clearly near that level right now. Down to the details then...
1. Well written:
Initial concerns (all addressed)
|
---|
|
- Can you please add a word clarifying what type of rich you mean when referring to "the rich region of Jiangnan" (i.e. is it economically rich, agriculturally rich, etc.)
- Sure! I replaced "rich region" with "rich commercial and agricultural region."[6]
- b. MoS compliance:
Acceptable
- Sure... and I totally checked that before marking it as fine...
2. Accurate and verifiable: Section acceptable
- a. provides references:
Acceptable
- b. proper citation use:
Acceptable
- c. no original research:
QuestionResolved
- Assuming that the "two most illustrious" is from a source, this section is fine too.
3. Broad in coverage:
- a. covers main aspects:
Acceptable
- b. focused/on topic:
Needs work
- I'm a bit concerned that you go into too much detail on the military campaigns that happened under Dorgon. I'm willing to be swayed on the matter though, if you can make a good case for it.
- Ok, this is the toughest point to defend, because this section is indeed a little long. But here's my angle. First, the main events of the Dorgon regency were military campaigns, so I think they deserve detailed treatment. Second, this content can be found nowhere else on Wikipedia. Third, almost no printed sources (that is, English-language reliable sources on this period) give this kind of coverage, because they're usually either very concise (Jonathan Spence's Search for Modern China, Frederick Mote's Imperial China, 900-1800) or extremely long (Lynn Struve's book on the Southern Ming, or Frederic Wakeman's Great Enterprise). Summarizing all the main campaigns in a single page is a very useful contribution.
- Let's look at this long section in detail. Devoting one paragraph each to Li Zicheng (nemesis of the Ming) and Zhang Xianzhong (the "butcher of Sichuan") doesn't seem excessive. The Jiangnan section is longer, but it discusses major events like the birth of the Southern Ming, the Yangzhou massacre, and the "haircutting command," the last two of which had repercussions into the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (as the two images illustrate). I slightly simplified the prose and removed a few details.[7] The Southern Ming section, though, is too long, so I cut it from four to three paragraphs.[8][9][10] I simply moved the extraneous details to the undeveloped Southern Ming. Let me know what you think! Madalibi (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
4. Neutral: Section acceptable
6. Image use: Section acceptable
- a. license/tagging correct:
Needs workResolved
- File:ManZhow 8Flag White.jpg - this file has no source information. Please supply a filled out Template:Information template for this image, replace the image, or remove it. Technically I should have placed it up for deletion on sight, but I won't do that while the GA is active.
- I'm not savvy with images, so I replaced all four images with new ones. Replaced this one with a portrait of Shunzhi's father Hong Taiji.[11]
- File:Shanhaiguan.gif - same as above.
- Replaced with a portrait of Hong Chengchou, an important Chinese advisor to Dorgon.[12]
- File:Long-wu.jpg - the source on this file isn't valid. Please fix this, replace the image, or remove it.
- I simply removed this one and moved the remaining images around to fill the void.[13]
- File:The Shunzhi Emperor.PNG - the source is invalid (it links to a search engine page, not the page hosting the image). Please give the direct source and supply a filled out Template:Information template for this image, replace the image, or remove it.
- Replaced with a painting of birds by a renowned painter who happened to be distantly related to the Ming imperial household.[14]
- b. relevant/properly captioned:
Needs workResolved
- Captions that are not full sentences (such as the ones for the first two images in the "Transition and personal rule (1651–1661)" section) should not end in periods/
- Done, though one of these two images has now been removed.[15]
7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer:
- a. images that should have alt texts have them:
Needs work
- This isn't a requirement, officially, for GA or FA status. It is, however, good practice for accessibility reasons.
- Ok, I'm starting to work on this. This is the first time I write alt text, so just to get an idea: would you advise going into as much detail as the alt text of Song dynasty, or would you recommend something shorter?
- [Written several hours later than the paragraph above.] Ok, I'm done! This took longer than I thought, but I tried to give enough detail to help readers imagine what the image is actually showing. Let me know if the level of detail is good as it is or if it should be either simplified or enhanced. Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 09:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- b. general catch all and aesthetics:
Acceptable
Comments after the initial review:
I want to make sure that it's clear that I think very highly of this piece of work. I do believe that Featured status is within sight here.
That being said, please be cognizant of your word choice. I read and write at a graduate to postgraduate level. Words like extirpate don't give me any pause, and I'm quite used to reading and digesting high level academic papers written with specific discourse communities in mind. Among consumers of Wikipedia's content, however, I'm in a distinct minority. I'm not saying that you should dumb anything down, but I am saying that when given the choice between 'extirpate' and 'root out' or between 'uterine brothers' and 'maternal half-brothers', choose the one that more people are going to understand without having to google.
Anyways, I look forward to working with you on getting everything cleared up. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Closing comments:
I'm not going to go through and change all the icons again. Everything has been fixed up to a degree that I feel comfortable rating this a GA. It's a spectacular piece of work, and I look forward to the FAC that I see in its near future.